TrekMOVIE Is Broken

[M'Sharak]

Just out of curiosity, did I miss something? Is TrekMovie under new management now? What happened?

No, it's still Anthony's show - no new management, as far as I'm aware. The main thing which has happened is that he's got more people contributing content instead of doing nearly all of the writing himself. (He's also been posting fewer space-filler entries for the last year or so—which has led some to complain on occasion that "Anthony is AWOL"—but TrekMovie is generally on the spot when there's something newsworthy to report.) This current uproar is over a piece written by a guy who's been contributing editorial articles to TrekMovie for more than a year.

 

[JWPlatt]

I always see people write about Anthony. I never see Anthony. He has a more mythological feeling to me, like Zeus.

 

[Anticitizen]

If you were to read the article, this guy would have you believe that the highest rated blockbuster of the summer and highest grossing film of the franchise is a sign that Star Trek is "no longer popular" and "needs fixing," and the article is based on the Las Vegas "poll."

Box office numbers and popularity are a terrible way to judge quality.

Almost everyone agrees that Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was pretty much crap. Well, it's the highest-grossing Star Wars movie of them all, and the 13th highest-grossing film of all time. So can we stop using box office numbers? They describe marketing effectiveness more than anything.

I agree with the article. Star Trek is broken. There's no focus on a premise anymore. Each installment since the 90's has been about villains to blow up. They might as well rename the franchise 'Space Cops'. It's barely science fiction at this point and has devolved into action pulp.

And it really does belong on TV instead anyway.

 

[Amaris]

If you were to read the article, this guy would have you believe that the highest rated blockbuster of the summer and highest grossing film of the franchise is a sign that Star Trek is "no longer popular" and "needs fixing," and the article is based on the Las Vegas "poll."

Box office numbers and popularity are a terrible way to judge quality.

Almost everyone agrees that Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was pretty much crap. Well, it's the highest-grossing Star Wars movie of them all, and the 13th highest-grossing film of all time. So can we stop using box office numbers? They describe marketing effectiveness more than anything.

I agree with the article. Star Trek is broken. There's no focus on a premise anymore. Each installment since the 90's has been about villains to blow up. They might as well rename the franchise 'Space Cops'. It's barely science fiction at this point and has devolved into action pulp.

And it really does belong on TV instead anyway.

Box office numbers are a great way to judge financial success, however, and in that regard, STiD is successful. In terms of popularity, I consider the movie to be of high quality, and a worthy tribute to the Original Series. According to the critics at Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and a host of other independent organizations, Star Trek Into Darkness is a worthy Star Trek movie. It is financially successful, it is popular, it has a high rating on various independent critic sites. If that's "broken," then I hope every Star Trek movie gets broken all to shit.

In short, Star Trek doesn't need "fixing," especially by fans who want to go back to their comfort zones.

 

[dub]

I always see people write about Anthony. I never see Anthony. He has a more mythological feeling to me, like Zeus.

This!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Box office numbers and popularity are a terrible way to judge quality.

- Domestic/foreign box office vs budget
- Number of tickets purchased/number of screens shown on vs above
- Critical consensus as measured by Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc.
- Theater exit, phone, and other polling of movie viewers
- Blu-Ray/DVD/digital/On Demand sales/downloads
- To a lesser extent: (BO adjusted for inflation & compared with older similar films, merchandising/peripheral media sales, cable/satellite bidding price based on anticipated popularity, awards received, illegal downloads ((yes, this is sometimes measured)), etc.)

When taken together those are the only way to get any kind of objective gauge on the quality or lack thereof of a film. It's an imperfect system to be sure (and studios often like to fudge the numbers to recoup even more money or stiff the people working on the films), but it's the only one that's not based on a single opinion or anecdotal evidence posing as a universal truth.

By all of the metrics above that can be or have been measured so far, Into Darkness was a big success. That doesn't mean you have to think it was a good movie, but that also doesn't mean that your impression of the movie plus your informal read of online outspoken fandom opinion trumps the numbers and non-biased mass critical/viewer polling.

 

[BillJ]

Out of 231,000 people who saw it, 91% liked it with the average rating of 4.3 out of 5. What else do we need to gauge the quality of a film. People liked it.

 

[Opus]

Obviously 100 angry fans out of 15,000 at a Star Trek Convention have more influence!

Grrrr...

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Obviously 100 angry fans out of 15,000 at a Star Trek Convention have more influence!

Grrrr...

So much so that it's made it as a full story in Entertainment Weekly now to herald the release of STID on disc.

Thanks, knuckleheads. 100 fans just made Trek fandom a bigger joke with the general public, by saying a movie that the general public liked was the worst Trek movie.

 

[BillJ]

So much so that it's made it as a full story in Entertainment Weekly now to herald the release of STID on disc.

Thanks, knuckleheads. 100 fans just made Trek fandom a bigger joke with the general public, by saying a movie that the general public liked was the worst Trek movie.

And we wonder why the general public thinks that we're all virgins living in our parents basements.

I think the below clip pretty much says it all:

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As Fun Watchable

 

[Sindatur]

"Could you point at the Dollie and show me how The Bad Robot touched your Star Trek?"

Sindatur raises his wing and points at the Dollie's Heart

 

[M'Sharak]

I always see people write about Anthony. I never see Anthony. He has a more mythological feeling to me, like Zeus.

Pfft. Zeus never had an account at TrekBBS. He's nobody.

 

[SeerSGB]

So much so that it's made it as a full story in Entertainment Weekly now to herald the release of STID on disc.

Thanks, knuckleheads. 100 fans just made Trek fandom a bigger joke with the general public, by saying a movie that the general public liked was the worst Trek movie.

And we wonder why the general public thinks that we're all virgins living in our parents basements.

I think the below clip pretty much says it all:

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As Fun Watchable

Move over, I need that wall too

 

[Jeyl]

Well, when I look at STID and try to figure out what's wrong with Star Trek in general, this is the answer I come up with.

Success and reviews aside, what did STID really accomplish? Outside of potentially adding Carol Marcus to the crew roster (all depends if they want to bring her back), nothing really happens in this movie that signifies any real change. Bob Orci argues that thanks to this movie, Kirk has now earned the Captain's chair! Well, in my opinion, he earned the Captain's chair during the pre-title sequence when he violated the Prime Directive to save Spock. That's what I'd expect not only Kirk to do, but every Starfleet Captain to do. Yes, he lied in his report, but that should have been the real issue. Not violating the Prime Directive.

Sacrificing himself on the other hand? I don't see it as earning the Captain's chair. Anyone can sacrifice themselves to save the day. Spock did that in the last movie when he rammed the Jellyfish into the Narada, but nobody gave him any commendation. You could argue that he was saved in the end, but so was Kirk in this movie.

And it all ends the same exact way the last movie ended. After spending a good chunk of the movie on Earth, the crew are now together on the Enterprise, reporting in and getting ready to head out into deep space complete with the Star Trek opening monologue. But since the idea of exploring deep space was mostly thrown in as a pre-title sequence where the crew immediately went back to Earth, I don't have any real confidence that the writers will take that promise seriously. As Damon Lindelof said, if your a big budget action movie, you've got to save the world. I have a strong feeling we'll be back at Earth as one of the main settings/perils for the third movie.

 

[BillJ]

Success and reviews aside, what did STID really accomplish?

What more did it need to accomplish?

 

[JWPlatt]

What did STID accomplish?

It entertained.

Anything more is too existential to ponder. Our sun will swallow the Earth in a great red ball of fire in 4 or 6 billion years, so what does anything really accomplish?

 

[Franklin]

Well, when I look at STID and try to figure out what's wrong with Star Trek in general, this is the answer I come up with.

Success and reviews aside, what did STID really accomplish? Outside of potentially adding Carol Marcus to the crew roster (all depends if they want to bring her back), nothing really happens in this movie that signifies any real change. Bob Orci argues that thanks to this movie, Kirk has now earned the Captain's chair! Well, in my opinion, he earned the Captain's chair during the pre-title sequence when he violated the Prime Directive to save Spock. That's what I'd expect not only Kirk to do, but every Starfleet Captain to do. Yes, he lied in his report, but that should have been the real issue. Not violating the Prime Directive.

Sacrificing himself on the other hand? I don't see it as earning the Captain's chair. Anyone can sacrifice themselves to save the day. Spock did that in the last movie when he rammed the Jellyfish into the Narada, but nobody gave him any commendation. You could argue that he was saved in the end, but so was Kirk in this movie.

And it all ends the same exact way the last movie ended. After spending a good chunk of the movie on Earth, the crew are now together on the Enterprise, reporting in and getting ready to head out into deep space complete with the Star Trek opening monologue. But since the idea of exploring deep space was mostly thrown in as a pre-title sequence where the crew immediately went back to Earth, I don't have any real confidence that the writers will take that promise seriously. As Damon Lindelof said, if your a big budget action movie, you've got to save the world. I have a strong feeling we'll be back at Earth as one of the main settings/perils for the third movie.

Well, Kirk's sacrifice also made him face the reality that there are no-win scenarios (bear in mind he doesn't know he'll really survive). He was essentially reliving his father's moment in the Kelvin's captain's chair. An essential part of Kirk's character in the Prime Universe was his belief that he would always be able to cheat death. There's always a way out. In TWOK he realized he was wrong with the loss of Spock.

(I also think it was planned that Spock would be beamed out of the Jellyfish before it rammed into the Narada. So it wasn't really a suicidal/sacrificial run.)

As far as being Earth-centered goes, TMP started with Kirk on Earth and was about saving the Earth; in TWOK the mission started from Earth; TSFS started with Kirk on Earth; TVH was set on Earth and about saving it; in TUC Kirk's mission started from Earth (and coincidental to STID, became a mission to stop a plan for a Klingon-Federation war that would threaten Earth); GEN had Earth scenes; FC was set on Earth and was about saving it; NEM was about stopping a Romulan-Federation war that would of course threaten Earth.

 

[beamMe]

Success and reviews aside, what did STID really accomplish?

Making the first relevant social commentary in Trek in over 20-25 years while telling an entertaining story.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Success and reviews aside, what did STID really accomplish?

Making the first relevant social commentary in Trek in over 20-25 years while telling an entertaining story.

And one that we as a society should really consider and I can't think of another blockbuster that has done something similar.

 

[SeerSGB]

Well, when I look at STID and try to figure out what's wrong with Star Trek in general, this is the answer I come up with.

Success and reviews aside, what did STID really accomplish? Outside of potentially adding Carol Marcus to the crew roster (all depends if they want to bring her back), nothing really happens in this movie that signifies any real change. Bob Orci argues that thanks to this movie, Kirk has now earned the Captain's chair! Well, in my opinion, he earned the Captain's chair during the pre-title sequence when he violated the Prime Directive to save Spock. That's what I'd expect not only Kirk to do, but every Starfleet Captain to do. Yes, he lied in his report, but that should have been the real issue. Not violating the Prime Directive.

Sacrificing himself on the other hand? I don't see it as earning the Captain's chair. Anyone can sacrifice themselves to save the day. Spock did that in the last movie when he rammed the Jellyfish into the Narada, but nobody gave him any commendation. You could argue that he was saved in the end, but so was Kirk in this movie.

And it all ends the same exact way the last movie ended. After spending a good chunk of the movie on Earth, the crew are now together on the Enterprise, reporting in and getting ready to head out into deep space complete with the Star Trek opening monologue. But since the idea of exploring deep space was mostly thrown in as a pre-title sequence where the crew immediately went back to Earth, I don't have any real confidence that the writers will take that promise seriously. As Damon Lindelof said, if your a big budget action movie, you've got to save the world. I have a strong feeling we'll be back at Earth as one of the main settings/perils for the third movie.

Well, Kirk's sacrifice also made him face the reality that there are no-win scenarios (bear in mind he doesn't know he'll really survive). He was essentially reliving his father's moment in the Kelvin's captain's chair. An essential part of Kirk's character in the Prime Universe was his belief that he would always be able to cheat death. There's always a way out. In TWOK he realized he was wrong with the loss of Spock.

(I also think it was planned that Spock would be beamed out of the Jellyfish before it rammed into the Narada. So it wasn't really a suicidal/sacrificial run.)

As far as being Earth-centered goes, TMP started with Kirk on Earth and was about saving the Earth; in TWOK the mission started from Earth; TSFS started with Kirk on Earth; TVH was set on Earth and about saving it; in TUC Kirk's mission started from Earth (and coincidental to STID, became a mission to stop a plan for a Klingon-Federation war that would threaten Earth); GEN had Earth scenes; FC was set on Earth and was about saving it; NEM was about stopping a Romulan-Federation war that would of course threaten Earth.

While waiting on a phone call, I decided to dice up all 12 movies